( 1 ) ONE Nirmal Kumar Das died leaving him surviving the parties abovenamed by making a Will. The widow, younger son and daughter being the respondents abovenamed applied lor letters of administration in this Court with a copy of the will annexed. The elder son, the applicant abovenamed, lodged caveat.

( 2 ) THE present application was filed by the elder son for dismissal of the application for letters pf administration being P. L. A. No. 355 of 2001 on the ground that this Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said application. The application for letters of administration was filed by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that the deceased had his permanent place of abode at 25/5a, Anathdeb Lane, Calcutta outside the jurisdiction of this hon'ble Court as well as the City Civil Court, Calcutta. The place of abode was within the territorial jurisdiction of District Judge, 24-Parganas (North ). The deceased, however, left immovable property at Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta within the jurisdiction if this Hon'ble Court as well as City Civil Court at Calcutta.

( 3 ) THE applicant contended that the provision of Clause 34 of the Letters patent of the rules of this Court in its original side was no more applicable in the instant case in view of the amended provisions of the City Civil Court Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act of 1953" ). According to the petitioner since the property was within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court the application should have been filed in City Civil Court and not in this Court.

( 4 ) SUCH contention of the applicant was disputed by and on behalf of the respondents, inter alia, contending that by the amendment of the said Act of 1953 the provision of Section 300 of the Indian Succession Act was repealed in the State of West Bengal whereby concurrent jurisdiction was conferred upon the High Court along with the District Judges only in respect of the City of Calcutta and not beyond that,

( 5 ) THE parties cited the following decisions: - (i) All India Reporter 1929 Calcutta Page 141 (Gopal Chandra biswas and Ors. v. Guru Charan Kirtania and Ors.), (ii) 1984 volume-ll Calcutta High Court Notes Page 99 (In the goods of Sailendra Math Sarkar, deceased.), (iii) Volume 93 Calcutta Weekly Notes Page 812 (In the goods of smt. Tarak Bala Dasi.), (iv) 2003 Volume-ll Supreme Court Cases Page 111 (Bhavnagar university v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and Ors.), (v) All India Reporter, Supreme Court Weekly 2004 Page 4853 (Swedish Match AB and Anr. v. Securities and Exchange Board, India and anr. ).

( 6 ) TO appreciate the controversy let me first deal with the appropriate provisions of law. Sections 270, 300 (1) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 5 (3) of the City Civil Court Act are quoted below: -The Indian Succession Act:"270. When probate or administration may be granted by district Judge.- Probate of the Will or letters of administration to the estate of a deceased person may be granted by a District Judge under the seal of his Court, if it appears by a petition, verified as hereinafter provided, of the person applying for the same that the testator or intestate, as the case may be, at the time of his decease had a fixed place of abode, or any property, movable or immovable, within the jurisdiction of the Judge. 300 (1 ). The High Court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the district Judge in the exercise of all the powers hereby conferred upon the District Judge. City Civil Court Act: 5 (3) The City Civil Court shall have jurisdiction and the High Court shall not have jurisdiction to try and proceeding under - (i) The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890) (ii) xxxxxxxx (iii) The Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 (39 of 1925) (iv) The Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925)".

( 7 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 300 of the said Act of 1925 empowers the high Court to have concurrent jurisdiction with all District Courts and in Calcutta the City Civi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document